Magnus Betnér is a Swedish stand-up comedian that now has his own TV show called Betnér Direkt. His style is strongly reminiscent of giants like George Carlin and Bill Maher, but he is bald, brutal and takes no prisoners in his social criticisms of things like anti-immigration, religious and social conservatism and general societal wrongdoings. He almost always push the envelope, making volatile sex jokes and is one of the first Swedish comedians who has taken support of feminism to an art form.

However, just like George Carlin and Bill Maher, he sometimes stays from the path of evidence-based reason. In his later years, George Carlin gave partial support for 9/11 truth ideas and Bill Maher has issues with vaccines and the germ theory of disease. To be fair, both George Carlin and Bill Maher has strongly criticized anti-science sentiments as well. Mill Maher personally help threw out 9/11 truthers that disrupted his shown and George Carlin often made fun of creationists. Betnér has also mocked creationists and poked fun at supporters of Zeitgeist, so what I will be discussion below maybe be a rare exception, but statements that I think should be challenged.

In the latest episode of Betnér Direkt (episode 7 of the first season), in the segment called Betnérs bud (a monologue at the end of the program), Betnér makes the following claims (2:27 ->, my translation):

We must stop diagnosing our children. A study revealed that it is more common with ADHD the later in the year you are born. Among reasons to get the diagnoses, “run around and climb on things” and that “they do not like school or homework” is mentioned. I see. You mean that what it takes to get the diagnosis is that you are a child! And stop calling that which you get for ADHD medicine. The medicine that the government prescribes is amphetamine. That is not medicine, that is breakfast [picture of a Swedish celebrity that has been in the news for taking drugs eating white powder as breakfast cereal]. It is fucking obvious that children become more effective if they get amphetamine! Do you know who also gets more effective if they get amphetamine? Everyone!

In other words, Betnér makes the central claims that (1) ADHD is an invalid diagnosis and that (2) medical treatment for ADHD is amphetamine, not medicine. These are fairly common claims in the anti-psychiatry play book and I will be discussing them each in turn.

ADHD is a legitimate and science-based condition

Singh (2008) outlines the major positions that exists with respect to ADHD. The first is the notion that ADHD is primarily caused by interacting biological factors. This means that medical treatment is reasonable as it attempts to adjust for the neurological issues facing individuals with ADHD. The second is the position that both biological and social factors are important in explaining the cause of ADHD. From this perspective, the diagnosis does not yet capture the full range of heterogeneity or complexity of the condition and so medication is accepted, but it also emphasizes behavioral therapies. The third perspective is that the primary factors influencing the development of ADHD is environmental factors and support preventative interventions, rather than psychotropic drugs. While all of these three scientific positions accepted that ADHD is a valid diagnosis, there is a fourth position which rejects it all together. The main proponents of this fourth perspective are scientologists and certain sophisticated sociologists.

Before looking at the evidence for the validity of the ADHD diagnosis, it is worth clarifying a number of points. It is important to separate the two different questions of “whether” and “how”. To take an example, there is currently a legitimate scientific controversy regarding exactly how certain species are related by evolutionary common descent as the precise relationship between various taxa are still being investigated. That is, how certain species are related is controversial, but it is not controversial whether all species are related by common descent. We can apply this thinking to psychiatric diagnosis as well. As we saw above, the main scientific controversy lies in what factors influence the development of ADHD, not whether the mental condition exists. This is no different from any other psychiatric condition. The existence of depression, for instance, is not really controversial in science, but scientists are still working on finding out the risk factors associated with the development of depression, which range from biological factors such as genetic vulnerability, psychological factors such as negative thought patterns and social factors such as previous life experiences of loss and rejection or decrease in social support.

So what is the evidence for the validity of the ADHD diagnosis? Generally speaking, three important categories are (1) reliability, (2) neurobiological findings such as decrease in executive function and (3) efficacy of treatment.

The two most important diagnostic manuals in use in psychiatry is DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. The United States uses the former, whereas Europe primarily uses the latter. Both are reliable in the sense that if you subject, say, 100 children to psychiatric investigation, psychiatrists working independently of each other will very often reach the same conclusions for any given child. ICD-10 requires more diagnostic criteria than does DSM-IV-TR, and it also focuses more on impairment. To be diagnosed with ADHD using ICD-10, you need all three major behavioral symptoms need to be met: hyperactivity, inattention and impulsivity and it has to impair function more than transiently. The fact that some children sometimes display this symptoms transiently does not mean that ADHD is an invalid diagnosis, just like the fact that some people may be sad on occasion means that depression does not exist. If ADHD was not a legitimate diagnosis, it is hard to see why the reliability would be so high. This alone does not conclusively demonstrate the validity, but certainly points in the direction. More convincing evidence has emerged from neurobiological research.

But there are some consistent themes that have emerged. The most prominent theory of ADHD at this time is that it is mostly a deficiency in executive function (EF). EF is a function of the frontal lobes that allows us to focus our attention, to be goal-oriented, and to consider long-term strategies and consequences of our behaviors. Diminished EF explains many of the features of ADHD and the demonstrable harm that those with an ADHD diagnosis suffer. In one 2005 systematic review the authors concluded that there is robust evidence for EF disorder in those with ADHD, but that EF dysfunction is not a universal or required condition for ADHD. Therefore, “Difficulties with EF appear to be one important component of the complex neuropsychology of ADHD.” Other reviews agree, citing evidence for EF dysfunction in ADHD but pointing out that ADHD is a heterogeneous disorder and needs more study to define its subtypes.

If you read this study, and many others like it, you do not find the evasion and vague nonsense of a pseudoscience, but rather the process of legitimate science earnestly exploring a complex disorder, considering alternatives, probing for weaknesses in the data, etc. It does not, in other words, resemble the straw man that mental illness deniers attack.

So why is a child more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD the later in the year they are born? This is probably do to the fact that teachers are not controlling for relative age when they are deciding which children should be investigated for ADHD. In any given class, children may be as much as 11 months apart in age, and so when a teacher compares children born early in the year with those born later, he or she may hold up children born later in the year to the same behavioral requirements as those born later in the year, despite there being substantial difference in age. Needless to say, a larger proportion of children born later in the year may fail these behavioral requirements because of their younger age (almost a full year) and therefore be selected for ADHD screening. Finally, it is important to not over-interpret a single correlational study. At best, this study suggests that teachers need to take into account age differences better, not that ADHD is an invalid diagnosis.

Medical treatment for ADHD

When it comes to medical treatment, dose is a very important factor to remember. Any substance in a high enough dose will be toxic or even lethal. Water is necessary for human life to exist, yet consuming too much water will lead to water intoxication. What happens is that the water makes electrolytes in the extracellular fluid more dilute, which forces water into the cells (since the concentration of solutes is higher inside than outside). This leads first to increased intracranial pressure and then, as the cell swells, to cerebral edema and pressure of the brain stem. The end result can be brain damage or death.

Ritalin, a popular medical treatment for ADHD, is chemically similar to amphetamine. But the dose is so much lower that it does not produce a high, withdrawal or tolerance in the same way that occurs in drug users that take much larger doses of amphetamine. To be sure, there will always be a problem with parents using off-label medications and safety testing for long-term effects will always be needed. However, there is another side to the story. Children who do not get medical treatment (or any treatment) may start self-medicating. So one also has to look at the risk of not using the treatment. What if it is worse? I will finish this blog post with a longer quote from Singh (2008) and a personal word of advice to Betnér.

Childhood is frequently depicted as an ideal state of innocence and freedom, with children as passive subjects in need of protection. Stimulant drugs are seen as potential threats to children’s right to this particular experience of childhood. The protective intuition of nurture–neuroethics arguments is valuable and relevant in the context of drug interventions for children. However, in the case of stimulant drugs it may encourage overemphasis on the harms of diagnosis and drug intervention, and a superficial understanding of the benefits. evidence from two small in-depth studies into the social and ethical implications of psychotropic drug treatment suggest that children with ADHD express desire for psychotropic drugs; they successfully negotiate the stigma around drug treatment and they tend not to believe that the medication threatens their capacity to originate and direct actions for given purposes. ADHD diagnosis and stimulant drug use have been shown to affect children’s concepts of identity and personal authenticity, but the available evidence suggests that these effects are largely positive for most children, at least until they reach adolescence.

Spreading pseudoscience and moral responsibility

As a TV host, social commentator and comedian, Magnus Betnér enjoys a strong and broad support in Sweden. He has the ability to influence literally hundreds of thousands of people. With this, comes a moral responsibility. If Betnér is genuinely interested in combating other forms of pseudoscience than just creationism and anti-immigration, I suggest doing additional research before making broad, sweeping statements about things like psychiatry.

Thanks for writing this, Emil! As someone diagnosed with ADHD late in life, as an adult, I am saddened that so many people are in denial about ADHD. The harms of ADHD are real, and dramatically affect the lives of those people who have it. Not everything about ADHD is bad, but the bad parts are definitely bad. I have empathy for any child who has ADHD and whose parents are in denial about it. They won’t even let themselves think about having their child checked out. It is like a taboo to think about it or talk about it. This is a taboo we should be breaking, and I thank you for taking the time to help break it, Emil.

I just think back to all the problems I had in childhood due mainly to my ADHD and think, “I would never wish that on anyone, nor would I ever allow a mere taboo to prevent me from helping my child to find effective treatment.” The suffering is not worth it.

I am sorry to say that this is less usefull that other articles in your blog :(

Many people who claim to be against ADHD are, mostly, concerned about how easy it is to bediagnosed, and how parents shop for diagnose of their children, and that it is often used to excuse poor parenting choices.
Anedoctal evidence is, of course, no evidence at all. But when a child behaves in a way that is perfectly in line with the ADHD diagnosys when he is with his parents and is instead well behaved with other caregivers (grandparents, babysitters) something is off.

Many psychiatrics are also concerned with the over diagnosys of ADHD, which hurts truly ADHD children.

Not to mention that ADHD and autism spectrum disorder can be used to gain welfare benefits.

This of course hurts most the children who are legittimatly ADHD, since it feeds the quackery.

But, sadly, this is not something that science can address, since it is about modern society behaviour and the attempt to gain welfare benefits.

Do you have any evidence that what you are saying is actually true, and not just rumour?
For example, do you have statistics on the rate of over-diagnosis or parents shopping around?
Do you have numbers to support your claim that ‘many’ psychiatrists are concerned about this?
Do you have evidence that such over-diagnosis *actually* has any long-term harm for children?
Check your sources. I think you will find them lacking any data, and being based solely on the unsupported opinions of a few anti-ADHD folks, and the rumours that have spread from them.

While it is important to examine and evaluate diagnoses to make them as reliable and as valid as possible, reviews done during the last 15 years show that ADHD is not being systematically over-diagnosed. Here are two of them.

Although some children are being diagnosed as having ADHD with insufficient evaluation and in some cases stimulant medication is prescribed when treatment alternatives exist, there is little evidence of widespread overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of ADHD or of widespread overprescription of methylphenidate by physicians.

Based on the review of prevalence studies and research on the diagnostic process, there does not appear to be sufficient justification for the conclusion that ADHD is systematically overdiagnosed. Yet, this conclusion is generally not reflected in public perceptions or media coverage of ADHD. Potential explanations for the persistence of the belief in the overdiagnosis of ADHD are offered.

See, folks? It’s not that difficult to follow the trail of these anti-ADHD claims and find out the scientific reality that they are bogus. A little google and a little reading and another myth is debunked.

The *benefits* of treatment of ADHD overwhelm the actual minor side-effects of medication in the vast majority of cases. There are indeed some people who will not be able to find a medication that will work for them, or for whom the side-effects are particularly excessive, in the same way that some people are allergic to some medicines. But there is no long-term harm in trying the medications. If they don’t work for you, you stop taking them, and that’s it.

Anyone who drinks any sort of caffeine, whether coffee or cola, and who thinks ADHD medications are dangerous should realize that they too are medicating themselves with a stimulant in *exactly* the same way. Except caffeine is not as effective for ADHD folks. Since I’ve started getting treatment, I’ve been able to reduce my daily caffeine to almost nothing. I have a cola now and then for fun, but I don’t *need* the caffeine to wake up and start the day. In fact, for me the side effects of caffeine are *worse* than the side-effects from methylphenidate.

Betnér does not make the central claims that (1) ADHD is an invalid diagnosis and that (2) medical treatment for ADHD is amphetamine, not medicine. He is using humour and sarcasm, and provoces us into reading between the lines… Also he usually just says things as they are, and he doesn’t wrap it in and twists things like politicians ususally (read always) do. I must say he even brings truth out of the politicians that have guested his show. This is a very good program for Sweden and Norway (where I am from), that expresses the feelings of the people. Not always sofisticated but never untruthful. If you read between the lines, he’s not saying that Amphetamine isn’t medicine. He is saying that it might only be as good against ADHD as Supprexa is against depression, or a headshot to cure a tragic life.. He’s just pushing people to actually ask questions and reflect about all the information we are fed by countless, nameless experts. He lifts the lid a bit on a social pressure cooker..

This appears to be a deployment of the fallacy of appeal to motive. Even if Betnér has a good motive (“tries to provoke us into reading between the lines”, “pushing people to actually ask questions”, “reflect about all the information we are fed” or “lifts the lid a bit on a social pressure cooker”) for saying the things he does, this in itself does not make it rationally defensible. There has to be an independent argument for that conclusion.

And also, in an atmosphere where there already *is* a prevalence of ADHD-denialism and other forms of anti-psychiatry, even if he were just trying to get people to ‘ask questions’ and challenge in our minds the information we get from ‘countless nameless experts’, in the minds of his actual audience this can and will be interpreted by some (if not many) as being supportive of the ADHD-denialist position. Certainly, an ADHD-denialist would hear that and take it as a supportive comment!

I wholeheartedly agree that we should ask questions and challenge the information we receive from the ‘experts’ touted by the popular media. However, when the questions have *good answers*, we should also pay attention to those good answers and learn them; we should not continue to ‘ask questions’ that have already been answered soundly, if we are honest with ourselves and with others.

Likewise, while popular media may have ulterior motivations (profit, ideology, etc.) for presenting ‘experts’ in support of one thing or another, and we are better off to be wary of such, when *actual experts* have already formed a consensus based on scientific evidence, then we should also pay attention to their consensus opinions on matters of public health and mental health. We should not let our own ignorance become an excuse for dismissing reality, whether intentionally or not.

Debunking Denialism

Modern life presents us with an apparent paradox: science has a strong cultural authority, yet primitive darkness is coming back in the shape of creationism, quack medicine, opposition to vaccination, HIV/AIDS denialism, anti-psychiatry and so on.

Debunking Denialism takes on the enemies of reason.

Article Library

If you want to read more content from Debunking Denialism, check out the article library, or the main content below.

"I realize that 'complementary and alternative medicine' (CAM) or, what quackademics like to call it now, 'integrative medicine' (IM) is meant to refer to 'integrating' alternative therapies into SBM or 'complementing' SBM with a touch of the ol’ woo, but I could never manage to understand how 'integrating' quackery with SBM would do anything but weaken the scientific foundation of medicine."

- David Gorski, cancer surgeon and debunker of pseudoscience (source).

"Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

"If I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about my state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon; to worship a phenomenon because it seems so wonderfully mysterious, is to worship your own ignorance; a blank map does not correspond to a blank territory, it is just somewhere we haven’t visited yet"

"As an aside, it is ironic that CAM proponents often simultaneously tout how individualized their treatment approach is, but then claim that one product or treatment can cure all cancer. Meanwhile they criticize the alleged cookie-cutter approach of mainstream medicine, which is actually producing a more and more individualized (and evidence-based) approach to such things as cancer."

- Steven Novella, neurologist and founder of the New England Skeptical Society. (source).

"Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufﬁcient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child’s immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads."

"To me, skepticism is not believing what someone tells you, investigating all the information before coming to a conclusion. Skepticism is a good thing. Global warming skepticism is not that. It’s the complete opposite of that. It’s coming to a preconceived conclusion and cherry-picking the information that backs up your opinion. Global warming skepticism isn’t skepticism at all."

- John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (source).

“Rather than persisting in the view that they have been ‘rejected by science’, advocates in the cryptozoology community have more work to do in order to produce convincing evidence for anomalous primates and now have the means to do so. The techniques described here put an end to decades of ambiguity about species identification of anomalous primate samples and set a rigorous standard against which to judge any future claims."

“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”